Forgiveness and Retribution in the Criminal Justice System Essay

Justice is one of the most fundamental social, ethical, and moral principles we encounter every day. How you define justice affects how you think society should work. Some people may define justice as doing just actions such as buying food for someone in need, punishing a criminal by sending him or her to prison, or volunteering at a local shelter. Justice is when all individuals in this world are happy and secure; however, this can never be achieved. Since the world is not perfect, there are theories on how justice can be achieved as closely as possible. There are three main theories of justice: The Retributive, Utilitarian, and Restorative. The Retributive Theory of Justice states that actions deserve punishment and that the offender must suffer in the same magnitude that he or she caused. The utilitarian view states that whatever situation maximizes good and minimizes bad for the overall population is just. Lastly, The Restorative Theory of Justice states that the offender or criminal must personally repair the damage done and make the situation whole again. In this essay, I will argue why justice is when the world has an overall net positive outcome and should be addressed with a restorative view.

As John Rawls states in the Theory of Justice, justice is fairness and equality that can be achieved by all people having equal access to the basic rights and social and economic inequalities arranged to even out disadvantages (Rawls, 1971). His idea is a need-based justice system which results in a utilitarian society. It focuses specifically on making sure everybody can achieve their basic need, thus allowing the most people to achieve happiness. This is superior to a distributive justice system: a system in which everybody gets an equal distribution of goods (Lamont, 2016). This does not fulfill the utilitarian view because not everybody needs the same thing. For example, someone in the working middle class may need enough money to pay off house loans while a homeless person needs a house. If the distributive justice system were implemented and everybody was granted a certain amount of money, this homeless person would still be unable to afford a house. Need-based justice would grant their needs, which in turn maximizes net good for society (Traub, 2017).

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

Individuals in our society have been told throughout their lives that if they work hard and with ambition, they will succeed. This is not always true as it does not account for structural injustice. Rawls acknowledges that our society is filled with inequalities beyond our control, so it is only fair to account for these inequalities by giving more to those at a disadvantage. He calls this the difference principle. Though some may argue that this is unfair to those who have strived to achieve the most, they likely do not view the world under what Rawls calls the “veil of ignorance,” which allows us to view the circumstances without any personal biases. The “veil of ignorance” is a social thought experiment that requires one to think about the new world (Rawls, 1971). Behind the veil, one does not know anything about their future self such as sex, gender, or race. Those who argue Rawls’ need-based justice system is unfair are likely those who are currently at an advantage; therefore, do not see society in the eyes of the disadvantaged.

Justice must also be addressed in terms of criminal justice. Many people in The United States may find the Restorative Theory of Justice difficult to think about because it is so different than what we are used to. Instead of punishing criminals by incarceration, this theory forces the offender to take responsibility for their actions and harm by seeking forgiveness from the victim. This pushes our society to move forward as it introduces the idea that criminals can change and should not always be labeled as criminals. Encouraging the criminal to seek forgiveness from the victim is important. The action cannot be undone, but restoration will help. A research program conducted in 2001 concluded that 85% of the victims were satisfied with this process. (Sitemap, 2019)

Restoration and forgiveness are superior to the Retributive outlook for many reasons. The retributive justice theory states that the criminal must suffer in proportion to how his or her actions made others suffer, similar to the Biblical saying, “an Eye for an Eye.” Instead of focusing on the suffering of the criminal, we should be focusing on what was already done by moving forward. The United States overemphasizes incarceration: so much that our country has the highest incarceration rate in history (“United States…”, 2019). The United States holds 5% of the world's population; however, it holds 25% of the world's prisoners (“Mass Incarceration”, 2015). It can be concluded that if high incarceration rates increase overall safety, the United States should be the safest country in the world. Our country is not even on the list of the top 10 safest countries. Previous restorative justice implementations show that offenders are 83% less likely to reoffend again while 3 out of 4 incarcerated offenders are likely to offend again. A main issue with the US prison system is that it does not hold the offender accountable or require them to act, think, or change while they are in prison. They have no responsibility to acknowledge or answer for their mistakes. Alternatively, restorative justice will hold them accountable to repair things as much as possible as well as take responsibility and vow to not commit the crime again.

Another reason why retributive justice may cause criminals to re-offend is that it repeatedly exposes criminals to the main core drivers of violence including isolation, exposure to violence, and economic instability (Morris, 2007). Incarceration takes these drivers and forces criminals to be constantly surrounded by them. Even after incarceration, many criminals find themselves unstable economically, which may push them to turn to violence. Restoration avoids this as it pushes the offender to make amends with the victim rather than forcing the offender into an environment that is filled with drivers of violence. Restoration is much more personal and puts the criminal in a position to be looked at as a person rather than a body who committed a crime. An additional “consequence” in restorative justice views may be community service. This is a better approach to incarceration because it may help the criminal realize that their current path is wrong and possibly lead him or her to grow positively.

In conclusion, justice can never be achieved due to our imperfect world. Realistically, justice is when the individuals in our society have an overall net positive in happiness, safety, and security. In a situation where someone has caused suffering to another, justice is when the offender makes the situation whole again by confronting the victim.

References

1. Rawls, John, 1921-2002. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.
2. Lamont, Julian; Favor, Christi, 'Distributive Justice', The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =.
3. Traub, Stefan & Bauer, Alexander & Siebel, Mark & Springhorn, Nils & Weiss, Arne. (2017). On the measurement of need-based justice.
4. Sitemap, et al. “Evidence Supporting the Use of Restorative Justice.” Evidence Supporting the Use of Restorative Justice | Restorative Justice Council, Restorative Justice Council, restorativejustice.org.uk/resources/evidence-supporting-use-restorative-justice.
5. “United States Still Has Highest Incarceration Rate in the World.” Equal Justice Initiative, 4 Nov. 2019, eji.org/news/united-states-still-has-highest-incarceration-rate-world/.
6. “Mass Incarceration.” American Civil Liberties Union, www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/mass-incarceration.
7. Morris, Stephen. “The Causes of Violence and the Effects of Violence On Community and Individual Health. .” Global Health Education Consortium, Sept. 2007, www.cugh.org/sites/default/files/62_Causes_Of_Violence_and_Violence__Effects_on_Community_and_Individual_Health_FINAL_0.pdf.